Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Two possible stategies

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Sir EvilFreeSmeg, Oct 4, 2006.

  1. Sir EvilFreeSmeg

    Sir EvilFreeSmeg Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,434
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Two possible stategies

    Since leaving Iraq isn't a viable option (unless you want the Taliban and Iran to take over the entire middle east), here's two possible strategies for Iraq.

    1. Pull all coalition troops out of their current assignments and station them on the Iraqi border. If necessary, push in 10-20 miles for a buffer zone. Use the coalition to ensure that the Iraq border is so tightly secured that a gnat couldnt' fart without us knowing about it.

    While we prevent any more foreign terrorists from coming in the Iraqis clean house on their own. We can still supply a small number of SF observers to assist in the planning. The Iraqis themselves do all the bloody work.

    When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.

    2. We do to Baghdad what we did in Fallujah. If it looks, walks, smells or acts like the enemy - we kill it. We stop being so worried about accidently killing innocents - there are none when they're harboring terrorists.

    This tears the heart out of Baghdad but we will make damned sure there are no terrorists left alive. Then we move out and let the Iraqi government take control again.

    Then we move on through every single terrorist stronghold one at a time until there are none left alive.

    When that's done, we move on to the next theater in the war.


    If you had to choose between those two options, which would it be?

    I'd choose #1. This falls in with my desire to help others help themselves. We give them the guarantee that there are no more enemies coming in. But they have to kill those already inside by themselves. They'll either be wildly successful or get their arses kicked. If they get their arses kicked, the good thing is there are no more coming in. The Iraqis can get their **** back together and go back in and do the job right.

    This guarantees they've earned their freedom. They've earned the right to say they did it themselves. All we did was give them the space to do it. Along with that, their army will become combat hardened. This makes them that much nastier when they join us in the fight against Iran. And maybe, just maybe, Persia can be reborn as the once great nation that it once was.
     
  2. soul killer

    soul killer Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Option 2 for me, kill it before it kills you.
     
  3. Module88

    Module88 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,722
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Problem: Not enough troops. Hell, we can't even secure OUR borders.

    Problem: Not enough troops, and it won't get rid of the terrorism.


    Solution: Drop leaflets like no other advertising about an election. The ballot is simple. Do you want America to leave Iraq? Yes or no.

    Majority wins. They want us out, well, we're the ones supposed to be supporting a democracy, so we get out. If the **** hits the fan, well, we tried, but they wanted to do it themselves. If they want us to stay (doubt it), then there's a longer and more detailed idea I don't feel like typing out.

    Our "democracy" has changed itself. If you recall, we weren't exactly the peachy country we are now. We had slavery, few womens rights, racism, and a whole lot of problems. It took us many wars and millions of American deaths to get to where we are today. But America has since become one of the freest nations in the world (if not the freest). I wouldn't be surprised if it took a Civil War in Iraq to do the same. Sometimes it just takes a whole lof killing for people to realize how stupid it really is, especially over something like religion.
     
  4. Johnny

    Johnny Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pull out everyone. Keep a few agents in high up places here and there. Important positions. Watch them very closely.

    Should they even redevelop to a point where they could be a threat. Bomb the particular threat. Example a missile silo. The construction of a silo. or so on.
     
  5. DOC

    DOC Off Topic Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    256
    I too would go with 1, option 2 sounds a tad wrong to me and could result in alot of backlash. Also, with 1 as you said they would learn to help themselves, but there should be some safeguard if they start to lose or if the iraqi government begins to harbor the terrorists themselves.

    And pulling out is and won't be for a very long time a viable option. Both Democrats and Republicans know this but will never admit. We broke the country and set something new up, therefore we are stuck until we are sure they can stand on their own. You break it, you but it. Standard rules for invading a country.
     
  6. The Future now

    The Future now Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It isn't that we can't just that we won't.
     
  7. superdave

    superdave IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,404
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    472
    i say we take off, and nuke the entire site from orbit...it's the only way to be sure.
     
  8. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165

    #1 is kind of unrealistic. We can't even seal the single-front US Mexican border, and we're hoping to seal the tripple Iraqi border? This is after a pull back? Nope. We can't even seal the Syrian-Iraqi border with our troops fully deployed. It's impossible to do it when they're limited to the US zone.

    #2 is inviting trouble. Baghdad is too big to seal. So terrorists can start the fight, exodus Baghdad, leaving us to kill tons of civilians inside. This is great terrorist recruiting material.

    Is there an option 3?
     
  9. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    It is a viable option. Just because you made the mess doesn't mean we have to spend forever trying to clean it up. You failed again, deal with it.

    I seem to recall that the same rationale above was used to say you couldn't pull out of Vietnam. Back then people had the sense to know when they were beaten (well, eventually) and when it was time to give up and stop wasting time, money and lives fighting an unwinnable war with no objectives just because they can't admit they failed.

    LOL.

    I think that says it all.

    Most of the terrorists are foreign, this would only accomplish one thing; turn the entire world against you and create a massive rallying cry for Osama & Friends. I'll give you this, you conservatives sure know how to play into his hand. And in return he creates enough menace that you can keep getting elected. It's almost like you're working together. Wouldn't be all that illogical either, Islamic fundamentalists and the Religious Right want the same thing, just with the word "Mohammed" in place of "Jesus".

    You're speaking sense! Who are you and what did you do with the real Mod!?

    Okay, you can be the one who pays double taxes to pay for it all.
     
  10. DurfBarian

    DurfBarian IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,706
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    467
    I would go with option #3, invade Iran and Syria! U-S-A! U-S-A!
     
  11. S Z

    S Z IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    You been listening to Rush again Smeg?

    Extra points for guessing how his hypothetical co-incides with Murtha's plan.
     
  12. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Haha, nice catch SZ.
     
  13. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    It's kind of scary that Limbaugh is giving hypos. He is severely limited sort of speak. The least he could do is consult it with the US military or any GOP think-tank before throwing out geo-political ideas.

    Invade Turkey? Are we talking about the same Turkey with military traditions going back several centuries with a gigantic army who's military hardware have just been updated by the Israelis? The few Muslim-secular state that we can actually rely upon with 5 decades of membership in NATO?

    Limbaugh is a public person and owes his audience a duty to do some homework before he throws out ideas. Some people may confuse his ideas with journalism and take him seriously.
     
  14. soul killer

    soul killer Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look, theres a simple solution to everything.
    Just chuck a couple of Nukes there, no worries.
    Im sure we all want to do that and stop all of this bull**** once and for all.
     
  15. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Smeg's ideas are all stolen? That's un-possible!
     
  16. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Option 4: Keep coming up with stories like these ...

    ... as we continue to build and occupy our permanent military bases in Iraq. When the oil runs out, we declare victory and return home.
     
  17. Amra

    Amra IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    7,255
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    472
    Serious question: are we (the USA) importing more oil now from Iraq than before the invasion? Honestly, I want to know.
     
  18. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Iraq currently produces around 1.8 million billons/day ... pre war levels were about 2.5 million bbls/day. Those durn Iraqis keep blowing up our pipelines, raising holy hell, and thwarting the best laid imperial plans of Wolfowitz/Chalabi to privitize the Iraqi petroleum fields.

    In fact, Iraq has the 2nd leading proven petroleum reserves in the world. Saudia Arabia has the most.:

    DOE.GOV

    Miilitary and economic control of this area has alway been part of our grand strategy:

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

    Do you get it now Amra? Our American Empire has encircled the globe with military bases, not just for defense during the previous Cold War, but to now insure, that our access to strategically important areas/resources will be available to us.

    This was the underlying reason for the Iraq war. It was not about WMD, AQ ties, nor establishing democracy. Rather, the war was about control of their strategic petroleum reserves of the Middle East and Caspian area should other foreign nations (eg. Venezuela) embargo our nation.

    The bombings of 9/11 gave us the excuse. The administration lied and duped the American into war. We invaded, slaughtered, conquered, and set up our own government with puppet leaders to do to our bidding. We are still exaggerating the actual threat of terrorists ... exaggerations made easier by torturing of prisoners and subsequent use of their "confessions". The GOP congress has gone right along with this idea with their approval of the recent torture bill. Anyone opposed to such blantant violations of the Geneva Conventions and/or unconstitutional ideas are either branded "soft on terror", " cut and run wimps", or worse. (Juan Cole}

    In the end, this administration never formulated an exit plan for Iraq. Why should they? They never really planned on leaving ...



    Wake up people! Is this really the kind of America that you want? Is this the kind of leadership and policies that you were brought up to believe were noble and right?

    You can change this course ... you have the power.

    Vote this November and let your voice be heard.
     
  19. Pitboss_2000

    Pitboss_2000 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    How the hell does 'pulling troops out of Iraq' lead to 'Iran taking over the Middle East'? o_O
     
  20. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Don't ask, with every post it just gets more crazy.
     

Share This Page